unifi_list_devices

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: site defaults to UNIFI_SITE, and offset/limit only bound the returned tool output rather than the controller fetch. This clarifies pagination expectations and helps an agent understand the tool's non-destructive, read-only nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely lean and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds concise behaviorally relevant detail. There is no repetition of schema metadata and no filler, so every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with only three optional parameters, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough invocation context: tool purpose, default site, and pagination semantics. The main omission is guidance for choosing among sibling tools, but the output schema covers return-value details and annotations cover read-only behavior, so the definition is still reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially does so by stating the site default and clarifying that offset/limit constrain tool output, not the controller fetch. However, it does not explain the semantics of a null site, what values are appropriate for site, or the practical meaning of limit/offset beyond the schema's numeric constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'device inventory,' with the extra detail 'raw state codes' distinguishing this as an inventory-oriented list tool. The resource name differentiates it from sibling tools like unifi_list_networks, unifi_list_sites, and unifi_list_clients. Minor vagueness in 'raw state codes' does not obscure the overall purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unifi_get_device for a single device or unifi_list_clients for client inventories. The notes about site defaults and offset/limit describe invocation behavior, not selection criteria, so an agent receives little help choosing among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.